Conservatives Call Out Sotomayor's $3M from Publisher Amid Thomas Reports

The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is being questioned—this time by conservatives— following a report that Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not recuse herself in a case that involved her book publisher.

In April, ProPublica reported that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury trips from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow without reporting them on financial disclosure forms. New allegations, also reported by ProPublica, suggest that Crow paid a $6,000-per-month tuition rate for Thomas' teenage grandnephew to attend a private boarding school in Georgia starting in 2008.

The Daily Wire reported that Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House. She has authored five books, including her autobiography, My Beloved World.

She reportedly received a $1.2 million book advance in 2010 from Knopf Doubleday Group, a subsidiary of Penguin Random House. Two years, she received two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.

In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision on whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who had received money from the book publisher, recused himself in that case.

Conservative commentator Greg Price tweeted a link to the report, rhetorically asking, "What did Clarence Thomas do again?"

Another Twitter user wrote that since Harlan Crow did not have any business before the Supreme Court, his relationship with Thomas is less significant in comparison to Sotomayor taking up a case with a publisher with whom she had a previous relationship.

"Rather telling who acts outraged about the former and is silent on the latter," he wrote.

Ed Krassenstein tweeted that no rules exist regarding whether judges have to recuse themselves on cases unrelated to a publisher, even if past business was done with said publisher.

"This is not the same as receiving money from a large political donor and then hiding it by not declaring it, like Thomas allegedly did," he wrote.

One Twitter user posted a video of Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe, discussing the new allegations against Thomas regarding tuition payments.

"I can't even begin to imagine what would happen if it were Justice Sotomayor, if it was Justice [Elena] Kagan," Scarborough said in the clip, comparing Thomas' allegations to the GOP response. "Let's be clear here: Everybody at this table would be shocked and outraged and would be critical if this were a liberal justice."

Newsweek reached out via email to Penguin Random House for comment.

Transparency would 'bolster' High Court

Renee Knake Jefferson, a law professor at the University of Houston, told Newsweek via email that this latest revelation "demonstrates the need for transparent, uniform standards that apply to the disclosure of conflicts of interest for Supreme Court justices.

"The impartiality of the judiciary—both actual and perceived—should not be left to politicians and journalists," Jefferson said. "Parties before the Supreme Court deserve to know about potential biases so that the process is fair. Not all conflicts require recusal, but disclosure adds accountability.

"Moreover, adopting a code of ethics and a uniform, transparent process for disclosing financial interests would bolster the public perception of the legitimacy of the institution."

Lili Levi, a law professor at the University of Miami, told Newsweek via email that the allegations against Thomas and this new report about Sotomayor seem to raise different issues altogether—including the fact that "nothing is secret or undisclosed" about the publisher of Sotomayor's books.

"People who have been complaining about Justice Thomas' relationship with Harlan Crow seem largely to be complaining about the non-disclosure of the relationship and possible financial engagements...I'd think that any publisher would be happy to publish a sitting justice's book, so it's not as if Justice Sotomayor was particularly beholden to Penguin vis-à-vis other publishers," Levi said.

The recent allegations against Thomas, which Republican Senator Ted Cruz claimed was due to liberals heavily disliking Thomas because he's "Black," have led to the Senate Judiciary Committee calling a Tuesday hearing on Supreme Court ethics reform Tuesday. They discussed Thomas, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Levi dubbed the idea of a judge's recusal in any copyright case, regardless of the issues involved in the case or whether the publisher was a party, as "overkill."

Attorney Andrew Lieb told Newsweek via email that this new report shows that "the legitimacy of [the Supreme Court] keeps going downhill," and that it's more than the political points scored by catching justices in these alleged acts.

"The real issue is that SCOTUS has lifetime appointees with no clear ethical oversight," Lieb said. "That is not to say that there were any actual wrongdoings occurring on the Court, but instead that we, as a citizenry, need SCOTUS to be subject to third-party oversight where ethical issues can be raised to another body—rather than SCOTUS self-policing, if SCOTUS is going to keep its standing in our country."